Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
I check the provenance of every motion picture I consider seeing. If it's not originally photographed (sorry, "shooting" involves only weapons) on film, I won't go see it. As a discriminating member of the viewing public, that's just the way it is. I was thrilled to discover that I can still go see "Lincoln."

Sadly, as a result of this self-serving-only move away from film we don't go to the movies very often at all anymore. (And for the love of God, I'd rather be tortured than see a 3-D movie photographed using any technology.)

Not coincidently, I'm also on the verge of canceling a 35+ year-old subscription to Sports Illustrated because I can no longer tolerate the abysmal drop in photographic quality. I've tried for a loooong time to make peace with it. But so help me, if I have to look at one more over-sharpened, over-saturated, cherry-picked, PS-manipulated digital image with a fake film rebate, I'm going to go insane. At this point only the writing is keeping me from dropping them.

So you said the provenance of the movie being film... But what about digital projections of said film? Seems a silly thing if the actual end isn't also film.

And in fact, I'm fairly sure the original film is digitalized anyway in order to edit it, then turned film again after... Seems kind of silly to be so particular when it's all digitalized anyway.

And have you actually ever seen a 3D movie (new 3D not old red/blue 3D)? You should at least try something before you put it down.

What if the 3D movie was filmed on film? Wouldn't that make it ok to watch in your world?


The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk